Pitching Philosophy of Science and Technology (II)

Last time, my sales pitch was mainly that any branch discipline of philosophy can come to do philosophy of science and technology. This time, why not go one step further, because what philosophy of science and technology covers is not just the sum of the other seven branches~

Saying that the territory of philosophy of science and technology is bigger than the combined territory of the other seven second-level disciplines is a bit too much, but it is not entirely empty boasting either. That is because the division into the eight second-level disciplines of philosophy is itself unreasonable. Philosophy is not a science—not a “discipline of divisions.” The differentiation and refinement of specialties is a characteristic of the present age. Although it is beneficial and necessary in terms of work efficiency, it is not a good thing as far as scholarship itself is concerned. This point has long been emphasized by many scientists and scholars. Even in the specialties of the natural sciences and engineering, excessive subdivision of specialties is not a good thing; much less should the humanities also be broken down into ever smaller territories?

Philosophy should never have been divided into so many specialties in the first place, let alone the fact that the current division is completely illogical—I simply cannot figure out what standard it was divided according to. And worse still, after the specialties are divided, not only is there often a lack of communication between one teaching-and-research office and another, but people working in different directions within the same specialty also lack communication. It is frankly even worse than the professional differentiation in the natural sciences. In my view, the German traditional method is better: allocate funding according to courses, rather than according to teaching-and-research offices as the core. Of course, a certain research topic or a certain special topic class should have its corresponding field distinction, but for a philosopher, one should not use institutions like second-level disciplines or teaching-and-research offices to box in his or her affiliation.

In short, when doing philosophy, one should not have a parochial bias, much less carve up territories so clearly and sharply between us and them.

So let us be a bit idealistic and forget all the second-level disciplines of philosophy altogether. However, even if one folds all of philosophy together, philosophy of science and technology (as well as religious studies) will still retain its independence. For the so-called “philosophy of science and technology” is merely a borrowed name; its true research field has long surpassed the scope of ordinary philosophy—of course, philosophy should originally be all-encompassing, but I am speaking here only in terms of the actual situation of today’s disciplinary institutions.

What I want to say is that philosophy of science and technology is not only continuous with the other second-level disciplines of philosophy, but also with almost all natural-science and humanities/social-science disciplines—of course, originally “philosophy” is continuous with all branches of learning, but the problem is that philosophy has now been broken apart by disciplinary institutions. In that case, the most open of all the disciplines within philosophy can only be philosophy of science and technology.

As for the sciences, engineering, and medicine, there is no need to say much. Most people doing philosophy of science and technology originally come from departments of science, engineering, and medicine. (By the way, our doctoral program in history of science and technology seems to have come from the history of medicine program at Peking University Health Science Center.)

The humanities and social sciences also hardly need mentioning; they are all implicated. So-called “science studies” refers to scholarship that studies “science” from various angles. In particular, when we take “science” to be a human activity, science studies becomes a kind of second-order research, that is, research on scientists’ research activities; and of course it also includes research on the education and dissemination of scientific knowledge and ideas.

At present, apart from philosophy of science and history of science, the most important perspective should be sociology. Owing to the efforts of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), sociology has long shown every sign of overtaking philosophy in science studies. This also includes the anthropological perspective, meaning not only that anthropology’s conclusions have a profound influence on philosophy and science, but also that anthropology’s methods can themselves exert influence. Feynman once sneered that “philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” but scientists are not birds, are they? Why not say anthropology is to humans? Is that also utterly meaningless? The significance of science studies for scientists is at least comparable to the significance of anthropology for human beings.

History goes without saying.

Political science and international relations are of course also closely related to science studies—when talking about democracy, one cannot avoid talking about science; when talking about power, one cannot avoid mentioning “knowledge” (knowledge is power); and when talking about contemporary international relations, one certainly cannot avoid talking about science and technology. Social institutions, political systems, and the state “machine” are fundamentally also “technology” in this sense—what Mumford called “megatechnics.”

As for economics, people nowadays are all shouting about “the knowledge economy,” “science and technology are the primary productive force,” and so on—what exactly does that mean? I can’t really say clearly, but this obviously is a question about science, technology, and society. Right, by the way, have you heard of the financial giant Soros? He studied philosophy of science and technology with Popper, and also ran a “Quantum Fund,” and never forgot to write books using his own investment experience to prove his own views on philosophy of science and technology. In short, it seems that studying philosophy of science and technology does not do any harm for doing finance either~

Law—many people hear “law” and immediately say it is about training lawyers. That is obviously a misunderstanding. Of course, if you want to be a lawyer, you do not need to come and study philosophy of science and technology, but there are many fields within law that are related to science studies. In particular, issues concerning science and technology policy—people often say that science and education rejuvenate the nation, and policies in science and technology are undoubtedly crucial for the entire country. Of course, as for things like environmental ethics, they are also greatly related to law.

Of course, issues of science and technology policy are related not only to law, but also even more to management studies.

Communication studies need hardly be mentioned either. Peking University’s Center for Science Communication (which Fang Zhouzi called the Center for Pseudoscience Communication) is a virtual institution relying on the programs in history of science and technology and philosophy of science and technology. As for examining the “medium” as a kind of technology and culture, that is an even more important topic.

Disciplines such as literature and art may seem on the surface to have no direct connection, but on the one hand, as a science-humanities bridge, they naturally require literacy in literature and art; on the other hand, theoretical research in literature and art also has many important implications. What is called “postmodernism” originally emerged from literary and artistic theory. As for the directly related study of eco-literature and science fiction works, there is no need to say more.

It can be seen that no matter what field one is in, and no matter what questions one is interested in, it is worthwhile to pay attention to questions of science and technology—in the modern age, people are also forced to care about science and technology issues. And doing science studies also requires embracing research from various fields and perspectives. In short, come do philosophy of science and technology: your existing strengths in any field need not be buried, and your interest in any discipline need not be abandoned.

To be continued.

September 22, 2007

Latest Comments

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.